§Why CasetextPricing

MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation

MOTION to Dismiss Direct and Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaints as to Panasonic Corp. and Panasonic Corp. of North America

25 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 252,784 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 266,697 times   365 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  3. Nasious v. Two Unknown

    492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007)   Cited 2,893 times
    Holding that a plaintiff like Richardson must explain what each defendant did to him, when the defendant did it, how the defendant's action harmed him, and what specific legal right he believes the defendant violated

  4. Elevator Antitrust v. United Tech

    502 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 805 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conspiratorial activity “in entirely general terms without any specification of any particular activities by any particular defendant ... was nothing more than a list of theoretical possibilities, which one could postulate without knowing any facts whatever”

  5. Doe v. Unocal Corp.

    248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 932 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding "court may consider evidence" on motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)

  6. Kendall v. Visa

    518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 576 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that leave to amend would be futile where plaintiff was granted leave to amend once before and the amended complaint contained the same deficiencies as the prior complaint

  7. In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation

    586 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2008)   Cited 116 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the District of Columbia's consumer protection statute is a "comprehensive statute designed to provide procedures and remedies for a broad spectrum of practices which injure consumers", and thus, the plaintiffs could maintain a claim for price fixing (quoting Atwater v. District of Columbia Dep't of Consumer & Reg. Affairs, 566 A.2d 462, 465 (D.C. 1989) )

  8. In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation

    527 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2007)   Cited 113 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that subpoenas served on defendants and grand jury investigation carry no weight in pleading antitrust conspiracy where it is unknown whether investigation will result in indictments or nothing at all, also noting that a decision not to prosecute would not be binding on plaintiffs, and granting leave to amend

  9. Rick-Mik v. Equilon

    532 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 107 times
    Holding that conclusory allegation that gasoline station franchisor's intellectual property rights conferred market power was insufficient to allege market power in the relevant tying product market, gasoline franchises, as required to state a claim for antitrust violation based on the franchisor's alleged conditioning franchise purchase on the purchase of credit-card processing services

  10. Asahi Glass Co. v. Pentech Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

    289 F. Supp. 2d 986 (N.D. Ill. 2003)   Cited 120 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding supplier of active ingredient for drug lacked antitrust standing to allege anticompetitive agreement to apportion market for the drug